Delhi High Court
Mrs. Kulpreet Kaur vs The Deputy Inspector General ... on 27 August, 2018
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8935/2018
MRS. KULPREET KAUR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms Manmeet Arora, Ms Pavitra Kaur
and Mr Keshav Sehgal, Advocates.
versus
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL
INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs Suman Chauhan with Mr
Harminder Singh, Assistant
Commandant, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 27.08.2018
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
CM APPL. 34353/2018
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8935/2018 & CM APPL. 34352/2018
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to
comply with the terms of the Impugned Contract dated
16.11.2017 and extend the Impugned Contract by a
period of at least two and a half (2 ½) months so as to
enable the Petitioner to seek an alternative livelihood;
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari directing the Respondent to
produce the records pertaining to the Contracts entered
into with the Petitioner;"
4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying vehicles for
transportation. On 21.06.2017, the respondent (hereafter CISF) issued a
tender enquiry for supply of 12 CNG Buses for a period of six months which
was further extendable for a further period of six months. The petitioner
submitted its bid for the aforesaid tender enquiry and was successful. On
16.11.2017, the parties entered into a contract whereby the petitioner agreed
to provide 12 CNG Buses at the rate of ₹1,07,000/- per bus per month for a
period of six months from 17.11.2017 to 16.05.2018 (hereafter 'the
Contract'). The term of the Contract was further extendable for a further
period of six months.
5. The term of the Contract expired on 16.05.2018. Prior to the said
date, by a letter dated 06.04.2018, the petitioner gave its consent for
extension of the term of the Contract for a further period of six months.
6. On 29.05.2018, CISF issued a work order extending the term of the
Contract for a period of three and a half (3 ½) months instead of six months
as agreed by the petitioner. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by non-
extension of the contract for the full term of additional six months.
7. The petitioner contends that the petitioner had quoted the rate of
₹1,28,000/- per month pursuant to the tender enquiry. However, she had
agreed to reduce the same to ₹1,07,000/- per month on the assurance that the
term of the Contract would be extended for a further period of six months.
8. Since the term was extended only for a period of 3 ½ months instead
of six months, the petitioner approached the officers of CISF and she claims
that she was assured that the Contract would be extended by a further period
of 2 ½ months also.
9. Ms Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had agreed to reduce the rates on an express representation
that the Contract would run for the entire term of 12 months. She further
states that it was not open for CISF to extend the Contract for only 3 ½
months and as that was neither contemplated under the Contract dated
16.11.2017 nor consented to by the petitioner. She also referred to Clause 4
of the Contract and contended that the Contract was necessarily required to
be extended for a period of six months; the only condition being that the
performance of the petitioner should be satisfactory. She submits that since
there is no complaint with regard to the petitioner's performance, the CISF
could not have reduced the term of the Contract by 2½ months.
10. Ms Chauhan, the learned counsel who appears for the respondent on
advance notice has referred to the tender enquiry and has drew the attention
of the Court to Clause 4 of the same, which reads as under:-
"4. The Contract will be awarded for six months or till
procurement of vehicles by CISF, whichever is earlier. It is
further extendable for six months at the same rate, terms &
conditions and at the sole discretion of CISF."
11. She states that with effect from 31.08.2018, the CISF Headquarters
had supplied the requisite number of CNG Buses and, therefore, there is no
requirement for CISF to hire any bus from the petitioner. She states that in
the circumstances, the Contract was only extended for 3½ months and not
by six months as permissible.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the disputes raised in the
present petition are essentially private contractual disputes, which have no
element of public law.
14. In this view, it would not be apposite to entertain the controversy
sought to be raised in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. (See: Joshi Technologies v. Union of India: (2015) 7
SCC 728).
15. Having stated the above, this Court may also examine the terms of the
Contract dated 16.11.2007. Clause 4 of the Contract is relevant and is set
out below:-
"The Contract is awarded for six months (i.e. 17.11.2017 to
16.05.2018), further extendable by six months subject to the
satisfactory performance of the firm at the same rate, terms &
conditions, and sole discretion of CISF."
16. A plain reading of Clause 4 of the Contract clearly indicates that the
extension of the Contract was at the sole discretion of CISF. Therefore, the
contention that CISF was bound to extend the Contract if the performance of
the petitioner found satisfactory, is unmerited. Although the extension of
the Contract was at the sole discretion of the CISF, the same was, of course,
subject to the condition that the performance of the petitioner should be
satisfactory.
17. The contention that the Contract could be extended only for a period
of six months and not for a truncated (a period less than six months) may
have some merit. However, it is important to note that although the
petitioner had given the consent for extension of the Contract for a further
period of six months, she had accepted the Work Order dated 29.05.2018,
whereby the Contract was extended for the limited period of 3½ months
only. In this view, it would not be open for the petitioner to now contend
that the said extension was not in terms of the Contract and the CISF is
bound to extend the same for a further period of 2½ months. If the petitioner
found that the extension of the term of the Contract was in its terms, it was
always open for the petitioner to decline the Work Order.
18. The contention that the Contract is required to be extended on the
basis of the representation made to the petitioner is also unpersuasive. The
terms of the Contract and the Work Order are unambiguous and, any oral
representation made by the petitioner would be of little value.
19. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The
application also stands disposed of.
20. It is also clarified that the observations made herein regarding the
merits of the disputes are prima facie and would not preclude the petitioner
from availing other remedies in accordance with law.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 27, 2018/RK
